Gay marriage is adult's pretending

Good thing I guess then that the judiciary didn't redefine any word- but instead interpreted the U.S. Constitution.

Now, across the United States couples who want to can marry, irregardless of their spouses gender.

A win-win.

 

It doesn't and hasn't, words are re-defined through usage on a social level, the word marriage has been in the process of being re-defined for hundreds of years, this is just another step along the way.

Marriage in it's original form was a contract between a man and women (usually with the woman having no say in the matter), that has changed through out the ages to include polygamy, polyandry and now SSM .. I have no doubt it will continue to change in the future.

The religious concept of holy matrimony has not changed with the inclusion of SSM into the marriage definition. SSM in no way, shape or form effects the religious concept of holy matrimony. Marriage can be conducted by any person endowed by the state to do so, holy matrimony (or marriage) can only be conducted by an ordained member of a religion, and as is clear no religion can be forced to perform a marriage ceremony that goes against the teachings of their faith.

This whole facade of an attack on religion by including SSM in the definition of marriage is nothing but a shallow smoke screen to discriminate against homosexuals, SSM in no way, shape or form effects the sacrament of holy matrimony.

 

It has an obligation to interpret law, including law that defines legal status. The first time you said he phrase same sex marriage, you accepted the definition of marriage as including people of the same sex.

Allowing those people to register their legal status as 'married' has nothing to do with however you want to use the word. Or how you want others to use it.

It just allows the law to treat them as one couple instead of two individuals.



​

 

Your opinion is not supported by any evidence.
Currently heterosexual relationship between man and woman harshly discriminated by the government since when they get married, they have less rights and more responsibilities then homosexual couples.
E.g. when woman get pregnant man is responsible if lesbian partner get pregnant the partner has zero responsiblilty.

 

Powers are enumerated in U.S. Constitution.
There is no word in it that allow judge to force word definition upon people.
e.g. there is no logical explanation on how judge can force people to believe that "wedding cake" means "homosexual marriage"

 

Only if he chooses to be or if he got her pregnant.




​

 

Then don't believe it. *shrug*



​

 

actually NO,
the judge had forced people to think that marriage is not we have in our heads.
recently he had punished couple of people with 135 thousand dollars for non conformity of their brain.

- - - Updated - - -

only in your mind and mind of corrupt judges.
women can get pregnant without agreement of her man.

 

The Supreme Court didn't rule on a definition. The Supreme Court ruled on the U.S. Constitution- specifically the 14th Amendment.

As the Supreme Court has done 3 previous times when it came to State marriage laws. .

Judges can't force people to believe anything- all that they can do is enforce the law and the U.S. Constitution.

Like they did.

And now couples are treated equally before the law- just as the 14th Amendment requires.

- - - Updated - - -

The exact same rights and responsibilities. You just can't- and won't accept that.

- - - Updated - - -

When a woman gets pregnant through artificial insemination- both the husband and the wife are legally responsible as parents of their child- just as when they adopt a child.

When a woman gets pregnant through artificial insemination- both wives are legally responsible as the parents of their child.

Legally exactly the same.

 

Is that even supposed to make sense?

Is your rambling supposed to be about the business that was fined $135,000 for violating Oregon's business law?

If you run a business, follow the law- whether it is sanitation laws, labeling laws or public accommodation laws and you wont' get penalized. If you don't follow the law- except to be penalized.

 

And now we come back to your terrible problem with the idea that men have to be responsible for both where they put their dick and also have to be responsible for the children that they sire.

 

Exactly!!!

 

For some people wedding cake means cake for the wedding.
Wedding is a private ceremony for bride and groom i.e. man and woman.
If in your mind wedding means something different it is your personal problem
No business can accommodate all types of brains
If government punishes business for owner's inability to alter their mind and conform to alternative reality, it is called government repression of the dissidents.

 

Not sure what you mean, but heterosexual relationship assumes possibility of pregnancy, while homosexual does not.
If government provides equal benefits for both types of relationships but demand different responsibility it means that government discriminate heterosexual people.

 

I think the special pleading radar has just exploded. You've correctly presumed that I have a problem with the notion of self-evidence, but leaving that aside, if the existence of "the Creator" were even the sort of concept which could be perceived as self-evident, we would know about it. Take the "axiom" A=A. Proponents of dialectical logic tend to disagree that this is in fact an axiom, but everyone else immediately, "intuitively" accepts that it is one. With creationism, however, the story is rather different. The creation of the Universe by a supernatural, intelligent being is not taken as unwavering fact by all people across history and throughout the world; it only became popular once certain rulers decided that adding "creation of everything" to their version of god's divine CV increases legitimacy and coolness.

I wonder what semantic nonsense you're going to pull out of your arse now to explain why you didn't exactly call your faith an inconvenient truth.

 

Not very private- since most weddings have guests.

If you sell wedding cakes- then you have to sell wedding cakes according to the laws of the state- which in Oregon means that a business that sells wedding cakes cannot by law refuse to sell the wedding cakes because the client is black, or Jewish or homosexual.

If a business cannot abide by the business law in the state- then the business is going to be hits with penalties.

- - - Updated - - -

You can call it whatever you want- the rest of us call it government enforcing business laws.

You run a business- you abide by the sanitation laws, the labeling laws, and the public accommodation laws- or you end up getting penalized- and maybe put out of business.

 

Is the government discriminating against lesbians because Medicare will pay for prostate exams for men- but not for women?

 

because everyone knows what the (*)(*)(*)(*) is, it is written and enumerated.
but wedding is something different for different people, and there is no law that declares what the wedding is.

 

This is a good example.
Government does not pay for prostate exam because women does not need it.
But for some reason government pays benefits to homosexual couples that do not require any kind of regulation or government involvement.

 

Could you please clarify this assertion. Which government? What benefits? Sorry, but that's very vague.

 

It's people like you that make the world a horrible place.

 

Currently U.S. government provides set of benefits for sexual couples under name marriage.

 

What about couples who aren't "sexual", but married??

 

You are still arguing for special benefits for people claiming religious affiliation by allowing them to ignore state law yet you believe homosexuals being allowed to sign a civil document is too far, it makes no legal or practical sense.

Again, if someone has such deeply held beliefs that a wedding cake is a such a holy object condoning every action the receiving couple represents; why would that individual decide to open a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing bakery open to the public? Do you people even hear your own arguments - it's ludicrous. This is why even the most conservative courts are ruling against you.

 

Those "people"... want a form of theocracy (or they 'think' they do). And that will all be well/good with them, as long as the 'law' is based upon religious beliefs that they themselves approve of. (Other than that, it will be virtually perpetual enmity and strife, and all the other issues stemming from religious factionalism. It's almost guaranteed.

I'd rather spend my life on an island populated with humanists and atheists (and I mean that in the fondest way possible).